United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Mother, Air Force Vet Kidnapped, Sent to Rikers for Traveling in NY with Her Legal Texas Handgun
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mo ... veling-ny-legal-texas-handgun/
Published: Nov 26, 2017
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2017-11-26 12:46:53 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 9034
Comments: 122
Robinson had harmed no one, had not taken anyone’s property and was merely traveling peacefully in her car when she was kidnapped by police and thrown into Riker’s Island at the Rose M. Singer Center with violent armed robbers and murderers. Robinson was driving from Texas to New York to bring her two children to spend some time with their father when she was arrested by the NYPD in the Bronx and charged with “265.03 FC (CRIM POSS WEAPON-2ND DEGREE C Felony)” for having her legally purchased and licensed handgun in her glovebox. Robinson, who spent five years on active duty, had secret military clearances and also has her active and valid Texas License to Carry. According to Federal law, an individual is not restricted from transporting legally acquired firearms across state lines for lawful purposes except those explicitly prohibited by federal law to include convicted felons; persons under indictment for felonies; adjudicated “mental defectives” or those who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions; illegal drug users; illegal aliens and most non-immigrant aliens; dishonorably discharged veterans; those who have renounced their U.S. citizenship; fugitives from justice; persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence; and persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders. Therefore, no federal permit is required (or available) for the interstate transportation of firearms. Robinson does not fit any of the restricted person criteria as described above. However, having the gun in the glovebox is likely what the New York police have taken issue with. A Funded Justice page, started by James Gressett, reads: “Deanna Jo, loving mother of two adorable boys, Veteran, Activist and friend in liberty, was arrested in NYC on Nov 11 while traveling from Texas, when her self-defense handgun was discovered in her vehicle. Please help us free her from Rikers. Two beautiful little boys are wondering where their mother is after the family of three traveled across the country from Texas to NYC so the children could spend time with their estranged father. Deanna Jo is a responsible mother and a veteran with military clearances and a Texas License to Carry. Concerned primarily with her children’s safety and posing no threat to any other person, Deanna Jo arrived at her destination, where her estranged husband took the children into his house then contacted police, who found her self-defense handgun in her vehicle. No mother should be forced to leave behind her best means of self defense, yet the City of New York sends a clear message: “We do not care about your Constitutional rights or your personal safety, and the only people who have guns here are criminals.” Now Deanna Jo sits in a cage at Rikers Island, stripped of her rights and incarcerated, and her children are missing her dearly. She needs to return to them so they can be with their mother. The city has basically told her that her life and the lives of her children are meaningless and that her right to protect them is trivial. We are a group of friends who want to see Deanna Jo reunited with her children as soon as possible. The goal set on the fundraising page is $25,000 and as of this writing has reached $6,400. The Free Thought Project spoke with Second Amendment and free speech activist Michael Picard who bailed Robinson out on Friday. He told us that Robinson is going to fight the charges all the way as there was no victim of her alleged crime. “She served her country in the Air Force, and this is how New York serves her,” Picard told TFTP. Unfortunately for Robinson, this is the second time she’s had an unjust experience with police. As TFTP reported at the time, Robinson was raided by police who were there to take her children over an alleged custody dispute. Robinson, who had a camera rolling at the time of the raid was seen pinned into a corner by Hunt County Deputy Josh Robinson who began beating the handcuffed 9-month pregnant woman as she screamed out in horror. Deputy J. Robinson was subsequently no-billed by a Hunt County grand jury and has since been reinstated to full duty. Robinson was cleared of any wrongdoing and CPS later admitted there was no warrant. If you’d like to call Bronx District Attorney Darcel D. Clark, and peacefully express to him that this woman has been through enough and doesn’t deserve to be locked in a cage for protecting herself and her children, you can so at this number: 718-590-2000. Also, if you’d like to donate to her legal fees, you can do so at her Funded Justice page.
This fund is to help us do that, plus assist with the legal battle to come.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-31) not displayed.
.
.
.
#32. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#30)
(Edited)
Here we go… Got it now?
We all know you get wood at the thought of having a strong and domineering master,but this ain't your wet dream come true because in order to TRANSPORT a firearm you have to POSSESS a firearm. In case you missed it,the 2nd Amendment is about our right to POSSESS. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You are as full of shit as a Christmas goose. Our Constitutional RIGHT to own and possess firearms PREDATES the federal government. It is the basis on which the federal government was formed and agreed to. Which in NO way prevents you from voluntarily becoming the slave to a strong master that you want to be. That is also your Constitutional right. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Really? Pretty sure it says more than just that. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Which part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing to you? Your question asking me “Which part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing to you” is an excellent question and of great importance. So I will make a deal with you, You like deals, don’t you? Of course you do….especially ones that you expect to greatly benefit from. Okay, here’s the deal: I will think about your question while performing the caregiver duties and answer it when I am finished. That’s my part of the deal. In the meantime while I am busy, you will post which part of “shall not be infringed” is NOT confusing to you.” That’s your part of the deal. Sounds fair, right? And you of course do believe in fairness, right? Okay, you make your post and I will respond when I return….forgive me, but it may be a while. I look forward to reading your post telling which part of “shall not be infringed” is NOT confusing to you” with great excitement and high expectations.
I see that you haven’t had time or the inability to intelligently post your answer to: Which part of "shall not be infringed" is NOT confusing to you? So, I will therefore proceed with my answer to your queston as promised. Repeating your question: The factual truth you are ignorant of or will not admit to is that America has regulated guns since its earliest days and gun control is embedded as a part of history starting under the founding fathers A shocking statement….I will admit it is. But let’s look for the truth behind the statement. Shall we? As a practicing libertarian, it will be astounding to you to learn the founding fathers who crafted the Second Amendment did not believe that the right to “keep and bear arms” was a great libertarian license and a “divine” proclamation for anyone to have any gun anywhere he wanted. Oh, the founding fathers did believe the right to “have arms” was an individual right. And they believed that the government should never be able to completely disarm the public. You probably have never known that the founding father actually barred large portions of the public from possessing guns. Surprised? Oh, they surely did....slaves and free blacks were prohibited from owning guns. Reason? Because the founding fathers feared they might revolt if armed. OMG, the shocking truth is that the founders would not permit ownership by many law-abiding white also. Does that surprise you? Of course it does! But wait, those people could own guns if the swore allegiance yo the government forming for the Revolution. What? You would blow a heart valve if today you were required to swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun. Now those good people who were not permitted ot have a gun were not traitors fighting for the British….they were simply among the 40 percent of people who….wait for it….strongly exercised their freedom of conscience and simply felt that 13 small disorganized colonies who were about to take on the most powerful nation in the world was a bad idea. Now, we of course should never try to emulate the foundering fathers and adopt gun laws like they did purely on the basis of race or political ideology. Wait….you don’t believe that happen? Then go research the Internet and you will find out it did. You won’t believe it even if you read it? Why not? You take as gospel everything The Free Thought Project publishedson the Internet. So my point thus far as to: “Which part of shall not be infringed is confusing to you” has been the information I am now sharing with you. I can answer, all of it. Because, the founding fathers limited access to guns….restricted and prevented ownership of guns….when they deemed it necessary to preserve the public welfare. If you are so deeply proud of the founding fathers, as we all should be, then why can’t we emulate and duplicate the founding fathers today and restrict guns from some people….of which could be criminals, mentally ill people, or ... Don’t you think we should still be able to do what the founding fathers did and find some appropriate balance? If not, then why not? The founding fathers also imposed onerous restrictions on gun owners through militia laws….but we shall make that a subject for another time. I could go on, but I don’t want to bore you with too many facts. So I will stop for now and wait for you to respond with an answer to the question: “Which part of shall not be infringed is NOT confusing to you? Your turn …
Oh, by the way….that is not my statement about how constitutional law developed….it came from the internet where constitutional lawyers and learned constitutional scholars presented information. I can take time to go look up the source, but with your abject closed biased mind….it would do no good to give a citation. However, if you so strongly disagree with the statement, then perhaps you should take some time to look into it and if the statement is wrong….then enlighten us all and show us how constitutional law really developed. But since you brought it up, our constitutional right to own and possess firearms originated with the founding fathers. Want to know how the Founding Fathers dealt with the right to bear arms? Then you should read Post #37. Adult Warning: You may be shocked!
Those were MINIMUM requirements, numbskull! They specified what weapons the Militia was required to have, not what they could keep and bear when off duty. .
The last portion of my post reposted without the italics I forgot to close off. This will make for easier reading….thanks for the understanding. /…./ Now, we of course should never try to emulate the foundering fathers and adopt gun laws like they did purely on the basis of race or political ideology. Wait….you don’t believe that happen? Then go research the Internet and you will find out it did. You won’t believe it even if you read it? Why not? You take as gospel everything The Free Thought Project publishes on the Internet. So my point thus far as to: “Which part of shall not be infringed is confusing to you” has been the information I am now sharing with you. I can answer, all of it. Because, the founding fathers limited access to guns….restricted and prevented ownership of guns….when they deemed it necessary to preserve the public welfare. If you are so deeply proud of the founding fathers, as we all should be, then why can’t we emulate and duplicate the founding fathers today and restrict guns from some people….of which could be criminals, mentally ill people, or ... Don’t you think we should still be able to do what the founding fathers did and find some appropriate balance? If not, then why not? The founding fathers also imposed onerous restrictions on gun owners through militia laws….but we shall make that a subject for another time. I could go on, but I don’t want to bore you with too many facts. So I will stop for now and wait for you to respond with an answer to the question: “Which part of shall not be infringed is NOT confusing to you? Your turn …
Deanna Jo Robinson is neither a criminal nor mentally ill. Don’t you think we should still be able to do what the founding fathers did and find some appropriate balance? Pretty sure the founding fathers never advocated jailing a military serviceman or woman with no criminal record for transporting a weapon from one place to another. Those were different times and yes - I would have joined the Revolution. You seem to forget that the people of that time were revolting against a government that had enslaved them - an apt parallel to the government here in the United States today. The founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they saw what their country has become. So - when fed.gov decides that Assault Weapons are no longer allowed and that possession of any such weapons is a criminal offense, you will be completely on-board with armed government goons going door-to-door "collecting" any and all of these previously legal weapons. Because...wait for it - the LAW is always right and we should never disobey any government edict. Anyway, who ever said Deanna Robinson is a criminal or mentally ill? Care to explain … We hear the term “Founding Fathers” frequently thrown around this day and time during a lot of political and Second Amendment discussions. This is usually done….as you are doing now,….in questioning what the Founding Fathers “did” or “did not do” and what they "intended" or "would have wanted." But come on now, fess up….what do you really know about out Founding Fathers? You probably don’t even know that the term “Founding Fathers” itself wasn’t actually coined until a 1916 in a speech given by Warren G. Harding. I have no doubt this bit of knowledge I am imparting to you comes as a complete surprise. I can give you a few more intriguing but lesser- known facts about just a few of the people who might qualify for the appellation “Founding Fathers” or, in one case, Mothers. But then I will save that for another time. We certainly don’t want to information overload your brain….now, do we? Getting back on point … What is the association of your remark about the “Founding Fathers not advocating jailing a former military service person” with the information in my post you are responding to where I pointed out that the founding fathers actually barred large portions of the public from possessing guns. Slaves and free blacks were prohibited from owning guns. And the founding fathers would not permit ownership by many law-abiding white people either unless they would swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun. Can you even phantom the idea of being a law-abiding citizen not being able to have a gun unless they would swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun? I can’t….but the Founding Fathers did. “Sad.” Those white people whom the Founding Fathers prevented from owning guns were not traitors fighting for the British. They were simply among the 40 percent of people who strongly exercised their freedom of conscience and felt that 1 small disorganized colonies wo were about to take on the most powerful nation in the world was a bad idea. I’m sorry and I don’t mean to be cruel to you….at least this time….but sometimes your posts express things in an incomprehensible and confusing way. This is definitely one of those times youy post is definitely unclear. You may have a “do-over” for your post here, if you so desire …
“There you go again” … From before: Pretty sure the founding fathers never advocated jailing a military serviceman or woman with no criminal record for transporting a weapon from one place to another. You keep thinking you know SO MUCH about the “Founding Fathers” and what they would or not do. I am here to prove you really don’t know shit about the “Founding Fathers” because I know you can’t even name ALL of the “Founding Fathers.” To prove that….I will issue a challenge to you. If you can name ALL the “Founding Fathers” then I will donate $500 to Stone for the maintenance expense of Liberty’s Flame Forum. If you cannot name ALL of the “Founding Fathers” then you will donate only $50 Stone for the maintenance expense of Liberty’s Flame Forum. Game on?
They swore allegiance to the Revolution. The government in power at that time was the British. That starts out as a false premise, transitions to a supposition, moves to a hypothesis before finally ending in a flat out guess. I don’t deal in premises, suppositions, hypotheses and definitely no guesses. If you want to continue a serious discussion….then you must give me something factual to respond to.
They swore allegiance to the Revolution. The government in power at that time was the British. Bzzzt – Wrong! Once again you are showing your ignorance. Don’t continue with this and make me also into an idiot. For it would be ar Robert Kiyosaki said: “If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots.” The members of the “American Colonial Society” rejected the authority of the British Parliament. In late 1774, the Patriots set up their own alternative government to better coordinate their resistance efforts against Great Britain. Each of the thirteen colonies formed a Provincial Congress that assumed power from the old colonial governments and suppressed Loyalism, and from there they built a Continental Army under the leadership of General George Washington. The Continental Congress determined King George's rule to be tyrannical and infringing the colonists' rights as Englishmen, and they declared the colonies free and independent states on July 2, 1776. So, it is as I correctly stated: “A law-abiding citizen not being able to have a gun unless they would swear allegiance to the government.” Tell me, why did you sleep through your American history classes …
You have posted since this message so you must have seen it. BTW….I mean the recognized Official List of Founding Fathers [and Mothers].
Deckard, Judging from the lack of your continuing responses and the display of your ignorance, this thread appears to now have run its full lifespan. Therefore, I will take the liberty to conduct the Thread Requiem at this time. I really feel sorry for Mrs. Robinson. She probably is a very nice and kind lady who is the mother of some great kids but through ignorance drove into a “hornet’s nest” in New York at a time they were undertaking a severe crack down on the unauthorized carry of weapons. I make this statement assuming she was not intentionally breaking the law and expecting not to get caught. Furthermore, I don’t think she deserves jail time for her stupid mistake, but that’s not up to me….it is up to a judge and jury or a prosecutor to decide whether or not to dismiss the charge. Furthermore, I am a firm supporter of the Second Amendment and I proudly carry. I accidently let my CCW permit expire but I continue to carry under the provisions of the Arizona law that now permits concealed carry [in unrestricted places] without a permit. Having said all of this, I took umbrage with some folks trying to make the “Robinson Incident” a Second Amendment case….which it definitely was not. From all the research infor I could find, I determined that her arrest was Constitutional and performed under Constitutional Law. I don’t care how hard this grates on you or how much it may make you want to puke….but what I have posted through this thread are only facts and I have adequately defended all of my points. Drawing a parallel to the song If you're gonna play in Texas, You gotta have a fiddle in the band ….I say, if your gonna argue in favor of the Second Amendment you gotta have your facts straight. Don’t argue from wishful emotion as to what you think things should be….argue from strength while armed with facts as to what things definitely are. The Second Amendment is not some magical phrase you can shout out and then own and carry any weapon anywhere you want to at anytime you wish to do so. If you don’t know much about the Second Amendment….there is not a better time to learn ALL about it that now and there is no better place to learn ALL about it than the Internet. Before I go, Deckard, I need to rate you….first on your factual knowledge of the Founding Fathers, then on your Second Amendment knowledge and finally on your Forum Décor. Here are your scores presented in that same order reading from left to right …
That's called ANARCHY. The only laws to be disobeyed are ones ALREADY DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The AGENDA cult always feels they are important enough to deem what's constitutional or not from their constitutional scholar degrees. Fuck them. That's not how we roll. They get ARRESTED... and if the law isn't constitutional, they have their case reviewed by the highest courts. The AGENDA cult thinks it works the other way around... they decide what's constitutional and deem the cops thugs... how can that not go wrong? lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Which did not supersede the British government. Gee whiz pumpkin - it's a simple question, since it's obvious that you support ANY law that fed.gov decides to enact. I'll take your non-response as a "yes". Which did not supersede the British government. The point was NOT whether the alternative government supersede the British government or not. The point always was that the colonists had to swear allegiance to the government before they could own a gun. The government they were required to swear allegiance to was the alternative government of the colonies. Damn, boy, I hope your poor ole mama didn’t have as much trouble keeping you straight as I am … This swearing allegiance to the government was required by the Founding Fathers and yet you continually stand up for them like they walk on water. This swearing to support the government is gross by your standards against how any American government should operate. I can only image how you would react if Trump requited you to swear allegiance to the government before you could have a weapon. At some point in your life, you really do need to your shit together and GET FUCKING REAL …
I'll take your non-response as a "yes". Here, I’ll let you listen to it … And, your question was not a simple question. It is the same type false premise I would use were I to ask you: “If the people to whom you give blowjobs start requiring you to rinse your mouth with Listerine before you try to swallow their dicks….would you do it?” See how stupid that is. Your question was just as stupid. It was stupid and a false premise since it is something for which there is no evidence it would ever happen [let’s hope so in your case] ergo, it was a mute unanswerable question as I see it. You really do need to get real. I know I have said that before….but I cannot say it often enough to you. I can say that I have never found any reason not to support any law that the federal government has enacted so far in my life. At least none that I can ever remember. But I am not going to waste time searching my memory bank to try to find one. That does not mean I will, nor is it intended to imply that I will, support all future laws the federal government enacts. I will make a decision when and if it ever becomes necessary. FOOTNOTE: Get the fuck out from under your bed, Deckard, and quit falsely worrying each day that the Feds are going to smash in your front door and confiscate your guns. Learn to live life to the fullest….turn off the worry mode. Geeze …
Sidebar Question:
-- the colonists had to swear allegiance to the government before they could own a gun. The government they were required to swear allegiance to was the alternative government of the colonies. This swearing allegiance to the government was required by the Founding Fathers --- Gatlin has failed to cite exactly where or when this requirement was enacted by the founding fathers, or by "the alternative government of the colonies".. Someone else may have to ask him, because he usually hides behind the bozo function to avoid my questions...
Someone else may have to ask him, because he usually hides behind the bozo function to avoid my questions... Gatlin is having some problems with queer-eye transplants etc., so who knows when his/her/it's surgical modification issues will be resolved, if ever? libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...gi?ArtNum=53601&Disp=7#C7 Probably started as a result of severe eye strain, from following yukon's ghey pron links.
Which did not supersede the British government. That is not the point. That is EXACTLY the point! We were REVOLTING against the British. Well, that pretty much sums up your submissive fealty to fed.gov. Abortion, gay marriage, the assault weapons ban in 1994, NSA spying on American citizens. Doesn't matter to you - the State is your god. My apologies. I didn't realize you are senile. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
HorseHillary! Slaves couldn't legally OWN firearms because they were,well,they were slaves. Freed blacks could and DID own firearms. Some even fought in the Revolutionary War. AND......,some slaves actually carried weapons on occasion,with their master's permission. They just couldn't OWN them,anymore than they could own any other property. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Oh,well! That's different! We all KNOW the internet or lawyers would never lie to us,right? But since you brought it up, our constitutional right to own and possess firearms originated with the founding fathers. Are you REALLY THAT freaking ignorant? The Founding Fathers said it was a DIVINE RIGHT THAT ALL FREE MEN HAD AT BIRTH. The 2nd Amendment merely identified and codified it. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
What next,neices,nephews,and step-children? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Riddle me this,fatman. WHY the HELL is identifying their names so freaking important to you? They are long dead,and it is now impossible for you to lick their boots. What is important is recognizing their accomplishments. I have no doubt you recognize the name Albert Einstein. Does that mean you understand his theories? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Well, that pretty much sums up your submissive fealty to fed.gov. Exactly! He's just not happy unless he has a master's boot to lick. Not there there is anything wrong or illegal about that. If it makes him happy,I'm happy for him. My objection is he wants us all to be bootlickers. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The Founding Fathers said it was a DIVINE RIGHT THAT ALL FREE MEN HAD AT BIRTH. One of the biggest lies ever told by any Founding Father was written into the Declaration Of Independence. It was … Thomas Jefferson authored that and Thomas Jefferson owned SLAVES before he wrote that, during the time he was writing that, and continued to do so long after he wrote that. Riddle me this, uninformed dimwit. What in the Hell Did Thomas Jefferson actually Mean by “All Men Are Created Equal”?
Freed blacks could ONLY own firearms after they swore allegiance to the government. You need to work on your reading comprehension. My point STILL is: You had to swear allegiance to the government at the time to own firearms. But my point STILL stands, the freed slaves had to swear allegiance to the government in order to own firearms. So, since slaves couldn’t OWN firearms…then how in the HELL does this last statement from you support any point your are attempting to make or contradict anything I have thus far said?
Comments (73 - 122) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest "Federal Law" doesn't replace Constitutional Law,dummy!
Duh … Duh …
It seems that you really don’t know what constitutional law is, imbecile!
So, here….please permit me to help you better understand by providing you with the Definition of Constitutional Law. Constitutional law refers to rights carved out in the federal and state constitutions. The majority of this body of law [constitutional law] has developed from state and federal supreme court rulings, which interpret their respective constitutions and ensure that the laws passed by the legislature do not violate constitutional limits.
[Boldness and Underlining have been added for the learning impaired who have neurologically-based processing problems].
I hope so.
For more legal definitions, visit the FindLaw Legal Dictionary.
#33. To: Gatlin (#31)
“Transporting” a firearm? That was what she was doing. Right? Of course it was.
#34. To: Gatlin (#32)
The majority of this body of law [constitutional law] has developed from state and federal supreme court rulings,
#35. To: Gatlin (#31)
The 2nd Amendment says you can have a weapon.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#36. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone (#35)
The 2nd Amendment says you can have a weapon. Really? Pretty sure it says more than just that. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Which part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing to you?
Actually, I just got up and I am starting some caregiver duties.
#37. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone, ALL (#36)
Which part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing to you?
Actually, the whole phrase is confusing to me and I will be more than glad to specifically tell you why. However, with your closed biased mind I don’t expect you to understand. Therefore, I take the time do this so those with objective minds reading our exchange will understand and maybe learn something.
#38. To: sneakypete (#34)
The majority of this body of law [constitutional law] has developed from state and federal supreme court rulings, You are as full of shit as a Christmas goose.
Nah, I am not full of shit. I am just smarter than you are and since you can’t come up with an intelligent rebuttal to prove the statement wrong….then all you have left is the low-intelligence ability to fling an insulting remark. Our Constitutional RIGHT to own and possess firearms PREDATES the federal government. It is the basis on which the federal government was formed and agreed to.
Duh, DUH….of course it does. But we were not in anyway discussing that….or at least I never was, I was discussing constitutional law and the origin thereof. Which in NO way prevents you from voluntarily becoming the slave to a strong master that you want to be. That is also your Constitutional right.
Yep, and it’s your constitutional right to remain completely ignorant….but the reason why you want to exercise that constitutional right is something only you can understand.
#39. To: Gatlin (#37)
(Edited)
The founding fathers also imposed onerous restrictions on gun owners through militia laws….
#40. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone, ALL (#37)
#41. To: Gatlin (#40)
(Edited)
then why can’t we emulate and duplicate the founding fathers today and restrict guns from some people….of which could be criminals, mentally ill people
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#42. To: Gatlin (#37)
But wait, those people could own guns if the swore allegiance yo the government forming for the Revolution. What? You would blow a heart valve if today you were required to swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#43. To: Gatlin (#31)
Federal laws say what kind of weapons you can have and where you can carry weapons.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#44. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone (#41)
Deanna Jo Robinson is neither a criminal nor mentally ill.
At least, not that we know….right? then why can’t we emulate and duplicate the founding fathers today and restrict guns from some people….of which could be criminals, mentally ill people
Your association here with Robinson being a criminal olr mentally ill absolutely make no sense. Pretty sure the founding fathers never advocated jailing a former military service person with no criminal record for transporting a weapon from one place to another.
And I am pretty sure that you are right about that. But then do you actually know what the founding fathers advocated jailing people for?
#45. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, sneakypete (#42)
The founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they saw what their country has become.
#46. To: Gatlin (#44)
Can you even phantom (fathom) the idea of being a law-abiding citizen not being able to have a gun unless they would swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#47. To: Deckard (#43)
So - when fed.gov decides that Assault Weapons are no longer allowed and that possession of any such weapons is a criminal offense, you will be completely on- board with armed government goons going door-to-door "collecting" any and all of these previously legal weapons.
#48. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone, (#46)
Can you even phantom (fathom) the idea of being a law-abiding citizen not being able to have a gun unless they would swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun?
#49. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone, (#45)
Game on?
Are you contemplating a response to my challenge?
Or, are you ignoring me because you already know that you will show your ignorance?
#50. To: Bzzzt Wrong, Gatlin, Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone (#48)
Bzzzt – Wrong!
And now, Gatlin's viewpoint....
#51. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone (#49)
(Edited)
#52. To: Gatlin (#21)
But I really do fail to understand ignorant people who have an attitude to feel they are entitled and have the absolute authority to selectively choose which laws they want to obey and which laws they will disobey.
#53. To: Gatlin (#48)
In late 1774, the Patriots set up their own alternative government...
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#54. To: Gatlin (#47)
So - when fed.gov decides that Assault Weapons are no longer allowed and that possession of any such weapons is a criminal offense, you will be completely on- board with armed government goons going door-to-door "collecting" any and all of these previously legal weapons.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#55. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Ston (#53)
In late 1774, the Patriots set up their own alternative government...
That is not the point. You get so damned lost in the exchanges that it is tough for me to keep you straight.
#56. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone (#54)
Gee whiz pumpkin - it's a simple question …
“Pumpkin” you called me….no, I’m Bumpkin. If fact, Cal Smith wrote a song about me famously known within the country music circle. But, you were close since pumpkin is mentioned in the song. Maybe that’s what mislead you. … it's obvious that you support ANY law that fed.gov decides to enact.
No that is not obvious, that is only a false opinion you have conjured up in your mind since you do not posses the intelligence to objectively comprehend my messages.
#57. To: Deckard (#56)
Given how often you continue to refer to the Founding Fathers, everyone would think that you at least could pin down exactly who they were….can you?
#58. To: Gatlin, Y'ALL (#55)
--- the founding fathers would not permit ownership by many law-abiding white people either unless they would swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun.
#59. To: tpaine, Gatlin, yukon, queer eye transplants, etc (#58)
Gatlin has failed to cite exactly where or when this requirement was enacted by the founding fathers, or by "the alternative government of the colonies"..
#60. To: Gatlin (#55)
In late 1774, the Patriots set up their own alternative government...
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#61. To: Gatlin (#56)
I can say that I have never found any reason not to support any law that the federal government has enacted so far in my life. At least none that I can ever remember.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#62. To: Gatlin (#36)
I look forward to reading your post telling which part of “shall not be infringed” is NOT confusing to you” with great excitement and high expectations.
#63. To: Gatlin (#37)
You probably have never known that the founding father actually barred large portions of the public from possessing guns. Surprised? Oh, they surely did....slaves and free blacks were prohibited from owning guns. Reason? Because the founding fathers feared they might revolt if armed.
#64. To: Gatlin (#38)
Oh, by the way….that is not my statement about how constitutional law developed….it came from the internet where constitutional lawyers
#65. To: Gatlin (#49)
BTW….I mean the recognized Official List of Founding Fathers [and Mothers].
#66. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#57)
Sidebar Question: Given how often you continue to refer to the Founding Fathers, everyone would think that you at least could pin down exactly who they were….can you?
#67. To: Deckard, Gatlin (#61)
I can say that I have never found any reason not to support any law that the federal government has enacted so far in my life. At least none that I can ever remember.
#68. To: sneakypete (#65)
What next,neices,nephews,and step-children?
Fine with me, I have no interest.
But if you want to name those,
then be my guest.
Have at it …
#69. To: sneakypete (#66)
I have no doubt you recognize the name Albert Einstein.
Of course, I do.
I stood many times at the address where old Al was born.
It was directly across from the Ulm Hauptbahnhof.
Our headquarters was in Ulm and I rode the train over there many times.
I am however, vastly surprised you even knew how to spell Einstein’s name.
Fess up, now….you really did need to use a “Spell Checker.”
#70. To: sneakypete (#64)
Oh,well! That's different! We all KNOW the internet or lawyers would never lie to us,right?
Of course they do.
But you believe and support the lying shit Deckard posts from TFTP.
What makes one lie different from another lie for you?
Could it be that you display bias when you gather and remember information selectively?
Hmmm …
#71. To: sneakypete (#66)
Are you REALLY THAT freaking ignorant?
Are you REALLY SO freaking ignorant to believe Found Fathers never lied? “All men are created equal”
#72. To: sneakypete (#63)
Slaves couldn't legally OWN firearms because they were,well,they were slaves.
Well, well….so, they still couldn’t own firearms and that is what I was saying. Freed blacks could and DID own firearms.
Dud … DUH … Some [freed blacks] even fought in the Revolutionary War.
Yes they did and made marvelous contributions. AND......,some slaves actually carried weapons on occasion,with their master's permission. They just couldn't OWN [firearms] ….
Damn, I have repeatedly said that slaves couldn’t OWN firearms. You just unnecessarily said that AGAIN.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]